To mediate all Graces - what does it mean?

[itsjustdave1988]

This sounds to me like conjecture. Up until this point, everything you have stated here can be interpreted differently than you maintain.

If you’ve ever studied heresies such as Universalism or Unitarianitsm you’d know that any passage of Scripture can be interpreted differently than the Catholic Church teaches. That matters very little to a Catholic.

Are you Catholic? I can provide more quotes if that is what you are looking for. I felt like I was hoggin the thread though.

What is it that you doubt? Do you doubt that Mary as Mediatrix is a certain teaching of the Catholic Church? Or is it that you reject a certain teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hesychios:

I would like you erudite scholars to help define what mediation of all Graces actually means.

I’ve given you what Dr. Ludwig Ott states. His *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *is a well-respected source of Catholic teaching. You can also read the links to Fr. William Most articles, and the links to Pope John Paul II articles. I also recommend works by Fr. John Hardon, specifically, his book *The Catholic Catechism *pg 164ff.

First: is this idea binding upon all Catholics?

Yes. It is a certain teaching of the Church to which all Catholics owe their religious assent.

Has it been dogmatically defined by Council or Pope?

Depends upon what you mean by “dogmatically defined.” If you mean to ask if this is infallibly defined (de fide definita), the answer is no. Does that mean it is among the field of free opinion for Catholics? That answer is no.

The way it is sometimes explained to new Catholics and inquirers it is as if this is already considered sound doctrine by the church, is it?

Yes.

Is this something I should be teaching people who inquire about the Faith?

Not unless you understand it. It seems to me before you teach a certain aspect of the faith, you need to assent to it yourself. I recommend Fr. John Hardon’s discussion in his The Catholic Catechism. New inquirers into the Catholic faith will better appreciate his popular level discussion rathat than the more scholastic level works. However, when you explain things simply, there’s a tendancy to be less precise. Further study of the scholastic level works should occur if on wishes to obtain a deeper understanding of this and all doctrines of Catholicism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Second: What is the actual meaning of the term, as close as possible? In other words, what does mediating all Graces actually mean to us.

First you have to understand what supernatural merit is. Simply put, God blesses man for acting faithfully. He doesn’t owe man this supernatural blessing, but he blesses man supernaturally nonetheless, due to the condign merit of Christ (condign = based upon deservedness). Your confusion regarding the words “intrinsically necessary” used by Dr. Ott may be clarified if you studied what the Catholic Church teaches about merit. Intrinsic necessity relates to condign merit, not congruous merit.

All of the just can merit supernatural blessings from God by acting faithfully. This merit is congruous, not condign. Similarly, we pray to God (although prayer is not considered merit). Yet, we are not owed anything because of our prayers. Nonetheless, we are taught to pray for ourselves and for others just the same. Why? Because those with faith believe that, if it be in accord with God’s will, our prayes will be answered by God, not because of our deservedness, but because of His love. In this way, prayers are not “intrinsically necessary,” but are necessary in another sense, as in “most fitting.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on “merit”:
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

“Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. … The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination”

Third: What is the origin, or first mention of the theory of Mary mediating all Graces?

I believe St. Irenaeus in AD 189 is the first extant citation that I know of concerning Mary’s role as mediatrix: “Mary … by her obedience became a cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race” (Adv. haer. III 22,4). Yet, just as our understanding of Christology increased over time, so did our understanding of Mary’s role in our salvation. You won’t find the earliest quotes referring to the Trinity, for example, as fully explaning the doctrine as it was understood centuries later.

 

[dominicsavio]

Peace be with you! I think that you asked for some quotes from saints thoughout the history of the Church. while i know saints are not infallible, there are many saints who have held this from the Early Church to the modern time. this list of quotes is by no means exhaustive, but these are just a few I could find in a few minutes looking through my personal library and reading online:

St. Maximilan Kolbe, one of the greatest proponents of this idea says…

"There are two kinds of mediation. The first is that one receives something from another, but with some purpose in mind; then the one who has received the gift is not the owner, but must use the gift in such a way as has been told to him; meanwhile another received the same gift but for his exclusive property and has the right to administer it as he chooses.

“The Blessed Mother is in the second category, having received graces in that manner from the Godhead. She is not like a mailcarrier. She does not receive graces from God for an appointed purpose so that She might use them in one way or another. The Immaculate Virgin receives graces from God for Her own exclusive property and She dispenses them to us how She wills, to whom She wills, and inasmuch as She wills, for these are Her own. Here, finally, do we see how holy and great God made His Blessed Mother, and how much we should honor Her”

“The Immaculate One, Mediatrix of all graces, can and wants to help us.”

"If Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, then only in proportion to our nearness to Her are we able to become channels of grace, mediators of grace which come from the Father through the Son who merited them–and the Immaculate who dispenses them, so that as they come upon us, they will through us flow into the lives of other souls.

"

"We have refuge to the Immaculate One and we are instruments in Her hand, for She distributes all graces of conversion and sanctification to the inhabitants of this valley of tears. We clearly profess this truth in the act of consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as it appears on the diplomas of the Militia. “…for through Your hands all graces flow upon us from the Most Sweet Heart of Jesus.” What is the foundation for this assertion?
Let us look into history. There is not a conversion where, in one manner or another, the hand of Mary was not at work. There is not a saint who was not inflamed by particular devotion and love for Her.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach that She, the Second Eve, corrected that which the first Eve spoiled, and that She is a channel of divine graces, our hope and refuge, and that through Her we receive grace from God. Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on the Rosary (22 September 1891) points out: “It is permitted to affirm that from that generous treasure of graces that the Lord has brought us…nothing is given us except through Mary, because God so willed it.”

St. Maximilian Kolbe actually has many more quotes on this. It would be rather crazy to try to post them all here. I will continue this post as this one is getting long…

 

[dominicsavio]

We can find this same teaching in the writings of St. Louis de Montfort, most especially in True Devotion to Mary:

“God the Son imparted to his mother all that he gained by his life and death, namely, his infinite merits and his eminent virtues. He made her the treasurer of all his Father had given him as heritage. Through her he applies his merits to his members and through her he transmits his virtues and distributes his graces. She is his mystic channel, his aqueduct, through which he causes his mercies to flow gently and abundantly.
God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary…”

“For God has made her queen of heaven and earth, leader of his armies, keeper of his treasures, dispenser of his graces, worker of his wonders, restorer of the human race, mediatrix on behalf of men, destroyer of his enemies, and faithful associate in his great works and triumphs.”

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church writes in The Glories of Mary:

“But that which we intend to prove here is, that the intercession of Mary is even necessary to salvation; we say necessary–not absolutely, but morally. This necessity proceeds from the will itself of God, that all graces that he dispenses should pass through the hands of Mary, according to the opinion of St. Bernard, and which we may now with safety call the general opinion of theologians and learned men.”

In response to objections by a certain theologian of his day, St. Alphonsus writes:

“But with his leave, and going upon his own admissions, mediation of justice by way of merit is one thing, and mediation by grace by way of prayer is another. And again, it is one thing to say that God cannot, and another that he will not, grant graces without the intercession of Mary. We willingly admit that God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God. But who can deny that it is most reasonable and proper to assert that God, in order to exalt this great creature, who more that all others honored and loved him during her life, and whom, moreover, he had chosen to be the Mother of his Son, our common Redeemer, will that all graces that are granted to those whom he has redeemed should pass through and be dispensed by the hands of Mary? We most readily admit that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice, according to the distinction just made, and that by his merits he obtains us all graces and salvation; but we say that Mary is the mediatress of grace; and that receiving all she obtains through Jesus Christ, and because she prays and asks for it in the name of Jesus Christ, yet all the same whatever graces we receive, they come to us through her intercession. There is certainly nothing contrary to the faith in this, but the reverse.”

 

[dominicsavio]

Here are some quotes of St. Bernard, as quoted by St. Alphonsus in the Glories of Mary.

St. Bernard says:

“God has filled Mary with all graces, so that men may receive by her means, as by a channel, every good thing that comes to them.”

he says that “she is a full aqueduct, that others may receive of her plenitude.”

Again, St. Bernard says

“See O souls, with what tender devotion our Lord wills that we should honor our Queen, by always having recourse to her protection; and by relying on it; for in Mary he has placed the plenitude of every good, so that henceforward we may know and acknowledge that whatever hope, grace, or other advantage we possess, all comes from the hand of Mary.”

St. Antoninus, quoted by St. Alphonsus says

“All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.”

St. Bonaventure, quoted by St. Alphonsus says

“As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in the world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice.”

The rest of the quotes I will give, all come from various saints as quoted by St. Alphonsus in The Glories of Mary

St. Bernard

“As every mandate of grace that is sent by a king passes through the palace-gates, so does every grace that comes from heaven to the world pass through the hands of Mary.”

St. Bernardine of Sienna

“that all graces of the spiritual life that descend from Christ, their head, to the faithful, who are his mystical body, are transmitted through the instrumentality of Mary.”

“from the moment that this Virgin Mother conceived the divine Word in her womb, she acquired a special jurisdiction, so to say, over all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so that no creature has since received any grace from God otherwise than through the hands of Mary.”

Like I said in my original post…there are many, many more quotes than I could possibly post here but I thought this should be enough to at least get started on this question of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces. Taking the example of the saints and popes before me, I certainly accept this teaching. Although not infallibly defined by the Magisterium, it is upheld in Encyclical letters and other documents and so is found to be worthy of belief.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From a Biblical view …

God chose to involve human mediation in the Incarnation, by including Mary. God could have simply appeared incarnate without Mary. He could have appeared fully grown, as did Adam, right before his baptism by John the Baptist. He didn’t. The question is why? Why didn’t God the Son appear as fully grown. The answer points to the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix.

Mary and Joseph were real parents to Jesus. They really raised him. In this sense they were both human mediators between the rest of us poor slobs and God the Son. Mary’s role, however, was unique from Joseph, in that God chose her specifically to be the living ark of the Living Word of God. The ark of the covenant was the most holy creation of God in the OT. Catholics see a foreshadowing in the typology of the ark. Like the OT ark, God made the living ark pure (Immaculate Conception), kept it pure (Perpetual Virginity), and free from corruption (Assumption).

Mary continued throughout Scripture to show that she was not only the “woman” of Gen 3:15 who with her Son would have the same enmity against Satan and his seed, but she also introduced Christ to us at the Nativity, first to the shephards in the field (Jews) then to the magi (Gentiles), she was also the “woman” at the wedding feast at Cana, introducing the ministry of Jesus to all of us. She was the “woman” at the Cross offering her own suffering (likened to being pierced with a sword by Simeon) along with her Son.

In all of these, Catholics see Mary as the archtype of Holy Jersalem in her faithfulness to the Old Covenant, and the archtype of Christianity and Mother Church in her faithfulness to Christ (cf. Rev 12).

An ancient theme of the early Church Fathers is of Mary as the “second Eve.” Eve, after listening to a fallen angel, disobeyed the Lord resulting in the fall of all mankind. Mary, after listening to an archangel obeyed the Lord, resulting in the redemption of all mankind. She untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience and is the new Mother of the Living because she is the Mother of the One who gives us Life.

The Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of mankind by the vicarious atonement of Christ were dependent on her assent. St. Thomas Aquinas asserts: “At the Annunciation the concurrence of the maiden was awaited as a representative of all human nature” (S. Th. III, 30, 1). Some will think this mere conjecture. Those familiar with the tradition of the Catholic Church understand it to be the common and constant consent of Catholicism.

 

[dominicsavio]

Hesychios:

Greetings all,

I would like you erudite scholars to help define what mediation of all Graces actually means. I will make no secret of my own difficulties with the idea. With your help I may resolve some of them. I include a poll to help us see where the population stands on this subject.

First: is this idea binding upon all Catholics? Has it been dogmatically defined by Council or Pope? The way it is sometimes explained to new Catholics and inquirers it is as if this is already considered sound doctrine by the church, is it? Is this something I should be teaching people who inquire about the Faith?

Second: What is the actual meaning of the term, as close as possible? In other words, what does mediating all Graces actually mean to usl. A poster on another thread was kind enough to attempt to explain this idea to me, but I am looking to clarify what has been said and possibly flesh it out with some examples.

Third: What is the origin, or first mention of the theory of Mary mediating all Graces? I would like to know the earliest possible reference to this idea as it is actually commonly put forth these days.

Your contribution to this discussion would be greatly appreciated!

peace be with you! I am certainly no scholar or expert, but i am a lover of Mary, my Mother and believe that she is the dispenser of God’s graces. I do not claim to be able to explain it perfectly or anything else and that is why I presented all those quotes from saints. as to your first question, no Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces has not been infallibly defined by the Church. however, this title has been given to Mary on several occasions and not from saints only, but also by Popes in their Papal Encyclicals. Papal Encyclicals are not infallible definitions, yet from what I understand, they still reflect the mind of the Church and their teachings are to be accepted. i have no problem sharing this teaching with others who are looking into the Faith because 1.) i believe the Church does accept it, while it hasn’t defined it and 2.) if you believed that everything God has given you has come through Mary, you would likely want to share this with others so that they too could come to share more fully in this gift!

Second question, what does it mean?

It means that while God is certainly the source of every grace and blessing, He has willed to make Mary the channel of His graces. St. Maximilan Kolbe, in his consecration to Mary says that “God has willed to entrust the entire order of Mercy to you”. God has given Mary the privilege of being the one who dispenses His graces and mercies. Since you asked what it actually means for us, I will tell you what it means for me, not as an abstract teaching but what it means in my life. The book, True Devotion to Mary has radically changed my life. Since the time of my consecration to Mary, it has been the most grace filled time of my life. For me, it means that I can go with loving trust to my Mother in heaven with anything I need trusting that She will give me whatever I most need (not always what I want, but what I need) because God allows her to do this.

as to your third question about the earliest possible reference to this…I don’t know. i wish i could help you but i have done no detailed study of this issue. i accept it because of the saints and popes who teach it. it is mentioned in several encyclicals as such can be trusted. there are many saints who taught it throughout different centuries but as to the earliest reference i am not sure. st. alphonsus liguori quotes saints like St. Augustine and others from his time…so it is pretty early but i don’t know the earliest for sure. i will see what i can find out. hope any of this helps you.

 

[dominicsavio]

i found a website that claims that St. Ephrem in 373 was the first to explicitly teach it how we understand it. i will not post the website because it is for a private revelation, but the article on Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces has good quotes from Saints throughout history. Here is the quote of St. Ephrems words taken from the website:

“I call upon you, Mediatrix of the world; I invoke your prompt protection in my necessities.” In his fourth sermon on Our Lady, he calls her “dispensatrix of all gifts… Mediatrix of the whole world.” [4]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Although not infallibly defined by the Magisterium, it is upheld in Encyclical letters and other documents and so is found to be worthy of belief.

Amen!!

I might add, too, that Catholic teaching of this sort is not only worthy of our belief, but as a Catholic, the formal teaching of the magisterium even if not infallibly defined requires our religious submission according to canon law.

Canon 752 “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

A note on “religious submission:”

The canon uses the technical expression *religiosum obsequium intellectu et voluntatis," *… An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but “submission” is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as “respect,” “deference,” “concurrence,” “adherence,” “compliance,” or “allegiance” would be better translations of obsequium.

(*New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, *J.P. Beal, et al, ed., New York: Paulist Pres, 2000)

The above commentary goes on to describe religiosum obsequium as “respectful religious deference of intellect and will” as in contrast to complete “absolute or unconditional obedience” of intellect and will. Thoroughly confused yet?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s some clarification …

Professor of theology, William May explains:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html

It is interesting to note that the term “dissent” did not appear in theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. … the obsequium religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly proposed … recognized that a theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of “withholding assent” and raising questions, but this is a far cry from “dissent.”

… **The **Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Octobre Mense (1891):
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RO1.HTM

The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.[5] **With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.[6] Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. **(par. 4)

**Pope Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182: **

"… the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. … for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hesychios,

Earlier still than St. Irenaeus, St Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150) also made reference to the Eve-Mary typology:

St. Justin Martyr, in his *Dialogue with Trypho, *said that Christ “was made man of the Virgin, so that the disobedience brought on by the Serpent might be cancelled out in the same manner in which it had begun.” He continued, contrasting Eve and Mary: “For Eve … conceiving the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But Mary … when the angel announced to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her … answered: Be it done to me according to your word.”

 

[marciadietrich]

Hesychios:

First: is this idea binding upon all Catholics? Has it been dogmatically defined by Council or Pope? The way it is sometimes explained to new Catholics and inquirers it is as if this is already considered sound doctrine by the church, is it? Is this something I should be teaching people who inquire about the Faith?

I wouldn’t teach it unless it is asked about. But I think the idea of all of us helping each other come to Christ and bringing grace that God provides is true. Just in the case of Mary, as a type of the Church and mother to all believers - and mother of the redeemer- her role is much wider than ours. It isn’t dogma, but it is binding and a doctrinal belief.

Second: What is the actual meaning of the term, as close as possible? In other words, what does mediating all Graces actually mean to usl. A poster on another thread was kind enough to attempt to explain this idea to me, but I am looking to clarify what has been said and possibly flesh it out with some examples.

Mary as a type of the Church and mother of God and spiritual mother to us takes the graces which originate with God, mediated thru Christ, and bestows them on us. Mary does not do this of herself and cannot do anything contrary to the will of God in this process. This is all a part of being in the one body, the one bride of Christ. That we all are related to one another and part of each other. So just as we have a communion of saints we have a sort of communion of grace as well.

Third: What is the origin, or first mention of the theory of Mary mediating all Graces? I would like to know the earliest possible reference to this idea as it is actually commonly put forth these days.

Would have to look it up but Mary being said to bring “all good things” goes back to around the early to mid 300’s - perhaps as early as late 200’s. Think it was St. Ephraim - an eastern father. In the Mass Christ is said to be the one who is said to bring us all good things. So he is primary, and Mary secondary. Just as Christ is the head and primary, but we have the Pope on earth.

[967](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/967.htm’) By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.
…
**969 **“This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

Also, perhaps the simplest way to look at this is by being the Mother of God, who physically bore Christ in her womb, she brought us grace in that indirect way of her participation in God’s plans for redemption. Jesus brings all grace and she bore Jesus in her womb. That isn’t really complete but perhaps the easy way to go that would seem less offensive to those new to the concept.

Marcia

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you all for having responded to this thread. I have a much clearer understanding about what this doctrine means, however I can tell you that I was never taught this as a youngster and I was raised as a Catholic of the Latin rite. I have also not been taught this theory in the Byzantine-Slavonic rite parish I attend, the terminology has not been put before me yet in any form.

I have grave doubts about the validity of this idea, your help notwithstanding. I am now in a period of discernment.

I cannot assent to this theory, I have no other doctrine to put in it’s place but I don’t detect a gap in my theological understanding, this whole theory is “extra” and on top of what I already know of Mary as the “Most Holy, Most Pure and Illustrious Lady, the Mother of God and Ever Virgin Mary”.

I believe in the Communion of Saints, I pray for the intercession of my Patron Saint, and also to the Theotokos. I believe that the intercession of these Saints is most effective. I also pray to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I pray to the Holy Spirit and I pray to God the Father every day.

I am a lifelong Catholic and I just cannot reconcile myself to this concept of Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces as explained to me here. I will speak to my priest and pray on it. If it becomes necessary for me assent to this theory to continue to receive communion in my home parish (which I love dearly), I know where the door is.

Thank You, may Christ keep you all

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Juxtaposer:

Yeah. What the heck… Now that would be elevating Mary to God. That’s insane! She’s a human being! I don’t care if she is the mother of Jesus. She intercedes for us; that’s it. I’m sure grace comes from that intercession, but not nearly all of it! Pretty soon you’ll be telling me that Mary died on the cross… (that was just for emphasis).

I want to know how she can be the mediatrix of the very graces given to her. ​

I thought there was a Feast of the Humility of Mary - why not make more of her nothingness, instead of emphasising her glories and so on ?

Mary comes to us, only because she is God’s creation - if anything, one might even say that she is Mother of God, because God was her Maker, her Mother ( that is what a mother is) first. God-become-man came from her, only because she had first come from God. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tuopaolo:

It’s not blasphemous at all. The “co” refers to with Jesus, not with us. I think I have a good understanding of the Coredemption since I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. Here’s what Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI says:In that sublime alliance of the hearts Jesus and Mary, Redeemer and Coredemptrix, together merit de condigno the same work, our salvation, according to an order willed from all eternity.So Jesus and Mary together merit our salvation. He writes further:In conclusion: we may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with Christ, the One Mediator. Under him she merits de condigno all which he merits, except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and Coredemptrix. This is precisely what preservative redemption in the full sense means in so far as it differentiates her cooperation with the Savior from that both of men and of angels: to be able to be actively engaged with the One Mediator in the historic work of salvation: as his Mother and as ours, both at its initiation and at its consummation, and therefore both before and after that consummation. She is therefore the link, or as St. Bernard put it, the neck, uniting Head and Body of the Church, only on the assumption that she alone is the Coredemptrix, not only offering, but in some way part of the sacrifice of Christ.

Once we realize that the compassion of Mary, like her Son’s suffering, is that of a public person, then the title, “Sorrowful Mother,” and its universal acceptance in the faith and devotion of the Christian people, is revealed to be a synonym of Coredemptrix.

So Mary merits at the Cross everything that her Son merits except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and to be Coredemprix. Mary, like her Son, is a public person and so her suffering is redemptive. And she not only offers her Son’s suffering but is in some way part of his sacrifice.

Here’s the full paper of Fr Peter:

voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

I should note that some theologians disagree with Fr Peter as to the nature of Mary’s merit. This is noted in Fr Peter’s paper.

If Mary is “in some way part of His sacrifice” - how though ? And what is meant ?​

The difficulty here is, that if Mary is offered up at Calvary, whatever that may involve - which what Fr. Fehlner certainly seems to be driving at - does this not mean that she is present in the Blessed Sacrament ? This would in turn seem to require one to say that the Blessed Sacrament is - or at least contains - the Body of Mary. Which would be extremely problematic. This very position got a book put on the Index in 1842 - see end of section 7. That is not a final judgement against a book - such acts are reversible in principle & actuality; but it does say something about what counted as sound, and what did not.

ISTM that she could only be “in some way part of His sacrifice” at Calvary, if she were hypostatically united with the Divinity of Christ. But that would make her God and Woman - something that would wholly overthrow the Catholic Faith.

Everything hinges on what Fr. Fehlner meant by those words. ##

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I just got my much awaited for copy of St. Liguori’s “Glories of Mary” For some reason, the local Christian bookstore doesn’t carry it, go figure!! Anyways, as a Protestant, but one who sees that yes, there is something about Mary, that early Protestant Reformers clearly appreciated, I found the declaration by St. Liguori himself in the introduction to the work very helpful. Here it is:

Declaration of the Author:

*Lest anyone think that any propositions expounded in this book are too advanced, I declare that I mean them in the sense in which they are conformable to the teachings of Holy Church and of sound theology. For example, in calling Mary our “mediatress”, I mean that she is a mediatrix of “grace”, and that her office differs from that of Jesus Christ, who is our principal and sole mediator of “justice.” In calling Mary “omnipotent” (as Saint John Damascene, Saint Peter Damian, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Cosmas of Jerusalem, and others have done), I intend to signify that, as Mother of God, she obtains from Him by her prayers all that she asks for the benefit of her clients. Taken absolutely, neither mediation nor omnipotence is attributable to Mary, since she is only a creature. In calling her our “hope,” I mean that all graces (as Saint Bernard teaches) pass through her hands.

---

*And that’s it, complete. Unlike many do from time to time, I did not cut and combine Liguori statements. Sure, much of what he says in this work is potentially surprising, but if it is sound Catholic teaching, then you should believe it. But understand it in the way St. Liguori would have you understand it from his introduction.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hesychios,

I suggest you ask yourself why you even believe the Gospels? Why do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, or in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Much within the Catholic faith is difficult to understand. This doctrine about Mary, in my opinion, is no more unbelievable than the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Divine and Human natures in the one person of Jesus. Yet, why don’t you find that doctrine unbelieveable? Why is that not too hard to accept?

Jesus had disciples leave him because they found his teachings regarding eating his flesh as “true food” and his blood as “true drink” to be too hard to accept. Those that remained his disciples didn’t stay because they fully understood what he was teaching. If you want to eradicate all mystery from our Holy Religion you will surely be disappointed. Instead, one ought to set aside their own faulty intellect and will and conformed themselves to the “pillar and foundation of truth.” That’s the hard thing about faith.

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” – St. Augustine

I have to admit, I’ve studied this doctrine for years and the more I study it, the more it makes sense to me. However, even if it did not make sense to me, I believe, without doubt, in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And that is enough for me to submit to another as a son trusts a father, without always knowing the nuances of the father’s teachings.

Do me a favor, read the following chapter from Fr. William Most’s Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion before deciding that this doctrine is unbelievable.

XII: Cooperation in the Objective Redemption

Good luck in your studies.